Is too much technology bad for F1?

Formula 1 is unique in its relationship with technology among major sports. While it is a competition between drivers on the circuit, it also a race between large teams of engineers, working with highly-specialised equipment, and major car manufacturers trying to prove their prowess in designing cutting-edge engine technology.

But how important is this technological aspect? Does it go too far - undermining the human element by reducing the influence of the drivers on the results?

Or is decades of constant technological development a fundamental and unimpeachable part of F1's nature and appeal?

"One of the things that sets it apart is that it is a constructors' formula and there are not that many of them about," argues Williams chief technical officer Pat Symonds.

"In professional motorsport Formula 1 is really the only single-seater formula that has that technical content, and that's quite important.

"I know there are many who think that's not particularly important, and even as an engineer I certainly wouldn't rank it at the top of what makes Formula 1 what it is.

"But we do need to recognise relentless progress, development and change in Formula 1 is something that an element of the public enjoy.

"Most weekends there's a GP2 race. GP2 can be pretty good racing, but Formula 1 is widely reported, it's widely watched.

"GP2 doesn't reach one per cent of the audience of Formula 1.

"They have to look at that and say 'here are two events happening on the same track on the same day, we really ought to understand the differences', and one of the differences is GP2 is a spec formula."

Symonds also points out that technological innovation has revolutionised many other sports, such as cycling, and even traditional 'athletic' sports through developments in human performance.

Technology tends to represent progress, so any attempt to put the brakes on this aspect of F1 will automatically be regarded as regressive.

For new team boss Gene Haas, the technological aspect is the unique selling point for F1 in the sporting world.

"What makes Formula 1 unique is that from a technological standpoint it's pushing the boundaries of engine and chassis development," Haas tells Autosport.

"The technology is always changing, which makes it very, very interesting and separates racing from other sports where you just have humans against humans - where you don't have anything maybe other than a bat and a ball, or something like that.

"It needs to be a technological challenge for the automobile producers to produce something that is the ultimate in technology - to pit against manufacturer against manufacturer, driver against driver.

"Formula 1 that is just driver against driver would not be Formula 1."

But this technological dependence is both a blessing and a curse.

On the one hand it makes F1 stand out, offering the chance to be seen as cutting-edge, pushing the boundaries of physical possibility, striving to go ever faster. A space race on Earth in many respects.

On the flipside the technological aspect is at the root of many of F1's perceived problems - creating a ludicrously expensive arms race in chassis and engine development, nullifying the impression that the drivers are greatly skilled, and reducing the likelihood of close competition because of the complexity of the cars, combined with a fundamental architecture that makes wheel-to-wheel racing more difficult.

"Technology has a role to play and it's important to keep the manufacturers interested in the sport through the technology, but it shouldn't dictate everything that we do," argues Red Bull boss Christian Horner.

"The technology has driven the costs so aggressively that it makes it very elitist. How can a company like Honda struggle so much under the current regulations?

"It's only going to scare off other manufacturers, because it's too complex, it's too niche, it's too specialised.

"You've got to take away some of the technology. You've got to make the cars a little simpler and therefore take a lot of cost out of the production of the car, and then you've got to have stability, because with stability you do get convergence and in reality cost will come down.

"Then perhaps be less precious over transfer of intellectual property. The last thing you want is one car and one engine throughout the grid, [but] be a team as opposed to a constructor, adapting more towards the Haas model - entrepreneurs that can still come in and run a team and compete.

"That will bring in more drivers that deserve to be there rather than just bringing a pay cheque."

Conversely, Honda F1 chief Yusuke Hasegawa says it's this extreme technological challenge that maintains his company's interest in F1.

"That Formula 1 is the best - the pinnacle of technology - is very important," he says. "That's why we have a reason to join this world."

The message is clear. Honda may be struggling to be competitive right now, but without regulations that encourage development of cutting edge engine technology manufacturer interest would wane.

But does that matter so much if public interest in F1 depends more on the human element of the competition?

Technological determinism in F1 creates difficulty in differentiating between the drivers. It is difficult to know who the best athletes are, because of the heavy influence of the technological variables on their performances.

"Technology has been able to dominate the sport and probably along the way we've lost a certain element we feel for the spectators is the most important factor - making the driver central to the racing result," argues Pirelli motorsport boss Paul Hembery.

"This is what in the future will attract new people to F1, because people want to look up to heroes, and you have to have an eye on making sure that at the end of the race you can say that whoever has won has had a big impact on that result.

"It doesn't mean to say they have the only impact, but the question you get asked most often when you are working in Formula 1 is 'who is the best driver?' Nobody knows, and that's where we need to find answers."

There is a serious case to be made for rebalancing the technological aspect against the other facets of F1, simplifying it to promote the driving and racing aspects above the rest in order to make F1 a more appealing spectacle. And it comes from an unlikely source.

"We need a much more precise definition of what Formula 1 is or should be in the next few years, thinking in particular to balance entertainment versus technological showcase," argues Renault F1 managing director Cyril Abiteboul.

"Because those two things, we try to make them match together but actually they clash more than they are compatible.

"You don't need to spend a fortune to have speed. It's a combination of the [regulatory] constraints plus the necessity to have quick cars that makes this world so extremely expensive.

"But you could very well have a very, very fast car - much faster than what we have - for just a fraction of the price.

"It's a no brainer. You just call Bruno Michel from GP2 and he will put together in five minutes a formula that is much faster, much more fun to watch than Formula 1.

"But clearly you will lose the technology showcase, and that will be an issue for most of the people who finance Formula 1.

"There is one model that is all about entertainment - standout cars, very fast, the best drivers. And on the other extreme you've got something that is completely free [in terms of regulation] from the technology standpoint, extremely expensive, and frankly Sauber, or Force India, or even Williams, will never be able to be there.

"Right now Formula 1 is sitting between those two extremes. We want entertainment, we want all of the teams to be capable of being here; but unfortunately, given the regulations, not all of the teams are capable of being competitive.

"We need to decide - are we here for the entertainment? Or are we here purely for the technology?

"It is not possible anymore to think you can make the two completely compatible."